3 ms·

Where I live, politicians are also all for reducing the availability (amount + affordability) of city parking. At the same time, they cry about city centers (w

by kleiba 3y ago

Where I live, politicians are also all for reducing the availability (amount + affordability) of city parking. At the same time, they cry about city centers (with their traditional shopping miles) dying out. Go figure.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
floatrock 3y ago
A traditional shopping mall won't die out. A post-1950s suburban-experiment strip mall might be affected. You can't get rid of parking on its own. If there's plenty of mixed-use development around so people can walk/bike/transit to their destination, then things will be fine. If you're getting rid of parking AND the nearest residence is a mile away AND the only way to get around is by car AND you're not building anything new, then yes, it's silly.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
Mostly because good transit implementation is so expensive only like a half dozen cities in the US are financially capable of building new rail transit or hiring a lot more bus operators. Also the fact bike lane projects in this country are seemingly done like a half mile at a time to the lowest standards, rather than a one shot whole network wide rollout of lanes that would make suburbanites feel safe to bike to errands. A robust bike network seems difficult only if you forget its just a matter of how you put paint on a road thats probably already regularly budgeted in routine road surfacing work, over having to spend real money and actually expand budgets. This all goes to show how timid politicians have become in recent years towards stepping off into the unknown and actually diverging from the status quo.
- QuercusMax 3y ago
  Compared to adding more lanes for cars, buying/leasing buses and hiring drivers has gotta be way cheaper. Road construction is expensive, especially if you have to get additional space in the right-of-way.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Do the math and run the numbers; the roads are usually much cheaper because once built the maintenance is relatively pedestrian. Whereas the cost of a bus line usually has as a yearly maintenance/labor a significant portion.

by kleiba 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

floatrock 3y ago

A traditional shopping mall won't die out. A post-1950s suburban-experiment strip mall might be affected. You can't get rid of parking on its own. If there's plenty of mixed-use development around so people can walk/bike/transit to their destination, then things will be fine. If you're getting rid of parking AND the nearest residence is a mile away AND the only way to get around is by car AND you're not building anything new, then yes, it's silly.

kjkjadksj 3y ago

Mostly because good transit implementation is so expensive only like a half dozen cities in the US are financially capable of building new rail transit or hiring a lot more bus operators. Also the fact bike lane projects in this country are seemingly done like a half mile at a time to the lowest standards, rather than a one shot whole network wide rollout of lanes that would make suburbanites feel safe to bike to errands. A robust bike network seems difficult only if you forget its just a matter of how you put paint on a road thats probably already regularly budgeted in routine road surfacing work, over having to spend real money and actually expand budgets. This all goes to show how timid politicians have become in recent years towards stepping off into the unknown and actually diverging from the status quo.

QuercusMax 3y ago
Compared to adding more lanes for cars, buying/leasing buses and hiring drivers has gotta be way cheaper. Road construction is expensive, especially if you have to get additional space in the right-of-way.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Do the math and run the numbers; the roads are usually much cheaper because once built the maintenance is relatively pedestrian. Whereas the cost of a bus line usually has as a yearly maintenance/labor a significant portion.